The Boomer generation isn’t used to being inconvenienced after all these years.

There’s a curious thing that you sometimes see in certain parts of America – signs at gas stations advertising their fuel as “100% GASOLINE! NO ETHANOL!” If you’re wondering exactly what kind of seal-clubbing, earth-befouling hillbillies these signs are meant to attract, I’d like to introduce you to my parents.

They drive giant SUVs any time they have to travel farther than two driveways away. Everything they buy is either single-serving or disposable, to assure maximum trash. They print their emails, double–bag their groceries in plastic, and run the A/C with the windows open. And, they believe that ethanol is bad for their cars because someone once forwarded them an email saying so.

I, their tomato-canning, bus-riding, cloth-napkin-using pinko commie daughter, am a constant source of mild puzzlement to them, and whenever I visit, I always try to drop a few hints.  Judgmental, yes, but I can’t help it. “You know,” I say, “you guys go through so many soda cans, it’s a shame you don’t recycle.” I even point out that their town offers free unlimited curbside pickup as well as free bins. But to them, it’s just not worth the hassle. I once asked my dad if he’d ever consider switching to grass-fed beef, explaining all the problems with factory farming. “But Allison,” he said between bites of steak, “That’s what makes it so tasty.”

We recently had a conversation in which he claimed new research is proving that oil doesn’t really come from dinosaurs, and is actually a renewable resource. I am not making this up. He was totally convinced that once the data came in, the world could forget about all this wind and solar stuff and just drill baby, drill. (I actually looked into this theory, and it’s a fairly popular topic on World Net Daily, on the home page between birther conspiracies and ads for Goldline.)

Although my parents’ tendency to throw garbage from moving cars probably puts them slightly further on the spectrum of environmental disdain than the average American, there are sadly, millions of people like them. People who will only accept green living when it becomes cheaper, easier, and more convenient than the way they live now.

It’s not that they haven’t noticed what’s happened over the past 30 years – it’s that their generation, aside from that tiny vanguard who gave us the first Earth Day, doesn’t want to be put out. They care, just not enough to do anything about it.

This difference in philosophy isn’t about Democrat versus Republican, science versus religion, or coastal versus heartland. It’s a generational thing. My parents and everyone before them grew up believing that the environment and all its bounty were simply theirs for the taking. They came of age in a time when land was plentiful, oil was cheap, America was the greatest country on earth, and God put the fish and the trees there for us to consume.

To them, slow food, reusable bags, and riding bicycles is undoing decades of technology and innovation that made life easier and more convenient. When they play golf in Las Vegas, they don’t look at lush, green desert fairways and see an abomination, they see a triumphant example of man’s ability to harness nature.

The problem isn’t just convincing people like my parents to acknowledge scientific facts or making green technology affordable and available. The problem is convincing them to endure a little inconvenience. It’s convincing them to eat a little less beef, hitch a ride to work, and leave some cake for the rest of us. It’s also convincing them of the scariest thing of all – that much of that magical progress they and their generation made wasn’t really progress at all.

I don’t know what the solution is, besides waiting for them all to die out (doesn’t that seem like the answer to all Boomer-related problems?). For now, I try to nudge my parents in the right direction when I can. They’ll never install solar panels or think about food miles, but I’ve already convinced my mom to start buying vegetables at the wonderful farm stands that populate the Midwest during the summer and fall. That’s a start. The next step, when she gets home with a dozen ears of sweet country corn, will be getting her to recycle the damn bag.

Image: Dominic’s Pics

The post A Generation Used To Convenience appeared first on EcoSalon.

How car companies are marketing gas guzzlers as green.

Car makers, desperate to move lingering inventories, are immersed in frenzied marketing campaigns, bombarding us with TV ads that dangle attractive zero-down financing and $1,000 rebates. While the sticker deals appeal to all consumers, the language lauding eco-flavored 2011 models is shamelessly aimed at a specific audience: The responsible buyer who might break down and crossover to a road hog at last.

Consider the Ford Flex Ecoboost edition. Praised for its twin turbocharged 3.5 liter engine offering V8 power and unsurpassed,V6-like fuel efficiency (EPA estimated 16 city/21hwy/18 combined mpg), it hauls ass fast for what is essentially a reconfigured minivan for seven passengers and minimal cargo space. The term “ecoboost” is a grabber – one that implies the stretch cube is infused with the kind of green engineering that will end global warming and reduce landfill plastic. But in reality, it means if you need to commute daily in a flashy bus, the gas savings is better than most.

Edmunds notes, “despite the added power and performance, the EcoBoost V6 manages to achieve the same fuel economy as the standard V6.” While the auto review publication admits the Flex isn’t “sporty” it adds that “the EcoBoost variants should supply enough excitement for the majority of drivers.”

Male reviewers love the giddy up of the Flex, which takes a mere 6.6 seconds to reach 60 mph while enjoying a quiet, smooth, Coupe Deville kind of ride. This punch makes it much more fun to drive than the standard model – and for an additional $10,670, the boost should be quite a blast. As Chrysler emphasizes in its recent Town and Country ads, safety and technology should be standard – not costly options – and the same should apply to fuel efficiency and other green benefits – which now greatly jack up prices.

This is especially true with new breed of  SUV hybrids – like the Chevy Tahoe – packaged as a great gas saving sport vehicle and retailing for up to $53,000 and change. This is compared to the non hybrid which sells for a more affordable sticker price of $37,000 and upwards.

What do you get for the extra $15,000? Well, you get to flaunt the eco moniker, for one thing, plus pretty good mileage for a sporty soccer mom shuttle. The Tahoe boasts better fuel economy than any competitors in its class: an EPA estimated 20 MPG in the city, 23 on the highway. This with 332 horsepower, 367 lb-ft of torque and up to 6,2000 lbs. of towing capacity. Towing capacity is always important in considering a hybrid. Sure it is!

Essentially, this means the SUV holds up to some of the new mid-size hybrids, like the 2011 Ford  Fusion – rated number two in its class, and demonstrating efficiency with 23 mpg in the city. Priced at around $28,000, it  also wows with eco-friendly cloth seats and an eco flow display system to track the power-train’s four modes of operation. But both the Fusion -with these sexy green features – and the Tahoe seem ridiculous when compared with the original gas savers, like the Toyota Prius,which gets 51/48 mpg city/highway.

Some complain about capacity, along with low visibility in the Prius – but avid composters and reusable bag toters seem to have adjusted just fine. The pernicious greenwashing of the hogs may assuage the guilt in choosing an SUV, but serves little other purpose.

Perhaps Lexus – the leader in the luxury SUV hybrid market – has performed the most egregious washing to date in its partnership with the Fairmont hotels to offer “the Lexus Hybrid Living Eco-chic  Suites” in San Francisco and Washington.

Auto Blog Green called the marketing ploy “taking hybrid hype to the next level” because it links the experience of driving the Lexus LS 600h (a $111,000, 21 mpg, 12 cylinder sedan) with green amenities that can make the affluent feel good about their footprints: bamboo furnishings, an organic mattress, a mini bar stocked with local biodynamic wines and coffee tables fabricated with recycled leather from Lexus cars. It only runs $869 a night – a pittance for potential buyers of an LS 600h – a hybrid which emits an annual 8.7 tons of CO2 with an air pollution score of 8 out of 10.

It all boils down to experience, really, and how much you care about the price of filling up and emitting. If you care a great deal, you might be a Smart Car or Nissan Leaf devotee. If you have those concerns, but care more about power and luxury, you just might buy into the green hype, getting the comfort and status you need along with an eco-boost from the letter “H” glued on the rear for all to see.

Images: Ford; GM; Toyota; Lexus

The post Greenwashing the Beast appeared first on EcoSalon.

Urban sprawl, pollution, over-consumption, deforestation…like it or not, U.S. taxpayers are still paying for all of these things to occur in America and beyond. Despite recent investments in green jobs and technology, an array of government subsidies pay big dirty industries like oil, coal and factory farms to destroy the environment in every way possible while greener, healthier industries like solar power and vegetable farms get a pittance.

10. Highways

When gas prices rose dramatically in 2008, Americans began flocking to mass transit in droves, resulting in declining revenues for the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Naturally, the Bush Administration’s response was to take money from already underfunded mass transit and use it to pay for highways that are already, as Slate put it, “paved with gold”. Billions of dollars are pumped into the highway system every year, which encourages the polluting car culture and leads to further sprawl, while mass transit continues to fall by the wayside.

9. SUVs

In case you aren’t already taking optimal advantage of the polluting power of our nation’s sprawling web of highways, the government would like to make your impact even greater by setting you up in a nice gas-guzzling subsidized SUV. A portion of the tax code revised in 2003 gives business owners a huge deduction for up to 30% of a large vehicle’s cost, which can add up to $25,000 in the case of a Hummer – far more than the credit given to individual purchasers of energy-efficient vehicles. Attempts to axe this provision in 2007 failed.

You only get the credit if it seats more than 9 passengers or weighs more than 14,000 pounds, but they don’t really care whether your business actually requires such a vehicle. So, by all means, get the Escalade.

8. Paper Mills

Paper mills cut down trees while sucking up massive amounts of fossil fuels and get big money from the government to do it – all through a loophole in a law that was supposed to benefit renewable energy. A law enacted in 2005 contains a section that gives businesses an incentive to mix alternative energy sources with fossil fuels. To qualify for the tax credit, paper companies started adding diesel fuel to “black liquor”, a pulp-making byproduct that they were already using to generate electricity on its own.

But time might be running out for this egregious misuse of taxpayer money: the unemployment extension bill approved by the Senate and on its way to the House would eliminate this loophole and use the funds for health care. (Editor’s note: We’ve contacted both the editor and writer of this story at BusinessWeek to confirm that this loophole will still be closed in the bill just passed by the Senate, and will update if more information becomes available. In the meantime, there’s this resource which seems to confirm the loophole is in fact being closed.)

7. Commercial Fishing

About half of the $713 million in subsidies given to the U.S. fishing industry directly contributes to overfishing, according to a new study by the Environmental Working Group. The subsidies – which equal about a fifth of the value of the catch itself – lower overhead costs and promote increased fishing capacity, meaning more fish are caught than can be naturally replaced.

Overfishing is a huge environmental problem – up to 25% of the world’s fishery stocks are overexploited or depleted, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization.  But that’s not the only result of the subsidies; because roughly half of the money goes toward fuel costs, other consequences include wasteful fuel consumption as well as air and water pollution.

6. Nuclear Power

The nuclear industry’s decade-long, $600 million lobbying effort finally paid off as President Obama agreed to grant loan guarantees for nuclear power plants.  Obama has been promising since the early days of his campaign that he would find a way to “safely harness nuclear power”, but the $55 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantees are going forward despite continued reservations about uranium mining and the storage of radioactive waste.

5. Factory Farming

American factory farms are literally filthy cesspools of their own making, and who else is cleaning up all that shit but American taxpayers? Giant factory farms make up just 2% of the livestock farms in the U.S. yet raise 40% of all animals in the U.S., and they do it using practices that are not only harmful to workers and the animals themselves, but to the environment.

The government heavily subsidizes factory farms so they can provide über-cheap meat and dairy, raising as many animals as possible in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of care. And why should they care about finding better ways to manage manure when the government hands them $125 million annually to “deal” with the consequences, and then doesn’t bother to check up on them?

Despite the backwards funding given to clean them up, gaping lagoons of livestock waste packed with pollutants continue to be one of the biggest environmental problems in America, fouling our water and causing those depressing dead zones in our oceans.

4.  Corn Ethanol

In the quest to beat back fossil fuels, cleaner fuels that we can grow seemed like a good idea – until we realized that some, like corn, make a huge dent in the world’s food supply. But that isn’t stopping the U.S. government from giving billions in subsidies to the corn industry in general, and corn ethanol in particular.

Corn-based ethanol gobbled up 76% of federal government renewable energy subsidies in 2007, leaving little for more environmentally sound renewable energy sources like wind and solar. Worse yet, it’s a huge drain on water resources, gulping down up to 2,138 liters of water per liter of ethanol.

This isn’t just an unwise investment – it’s also destroying the rainforest. As American farmers have abandoned soy for subsidized corn, soy prices have risen worldwide – and led to an increase in Amazon deforestation. Brazil is the world’s second-largest producer of soy next to the U.S., and growing demand has meant more clear-cutting for soy plantations.

3. Processed Foods

Ethanol isn’t the only product that comes to us courtesy of U.S. corn subsidies. There’s also plenty of craptastic processed “food” products packed with multiple subsidized ingredients: wheat, sugar, soy and of course, corn. Gee, could the obesity epidemic have anything to do with the fact that our government makes junk food cheap, and encourages its consumption through the food stamp program?

It’s a sad state of affairs when a Twinkie costs less, calorically speaking, than a carrot. Meanwhile, farmers who produce fruits and vegetables (aside from corn), don’t get a dime in government subsidies. While the government is considering junk food taxes, a change to the Farm Bill might be more efficient.

2. Coal

You would think that the coal industry’s long-held dominance of the American energy market would have eliminated the need for subsidies. After all, the industry spent $47 million last year on PR alone. But the fact is, coal companies are milking the government for all it’s worth while continuing to pump greenhouse gases and carcinogens into the air and turn the Appalachian Mountains into post-apocalyptic hellholes.

Coal subsidies have survived this long because of the industry’s staggering influence on lawmakers, and because constituents in coal states often fear the economic repercussions of a scaled-back coal industry more than they fear the harm to their health and homes. And on top of the federal coal subsidies lumped in under “˜fossil fuels’, the industry gets untold breaks on a state and local level in places like Kentucky, where the coal industry netted $115 million in subsidies in 2006.

1. Oil

Climate change: brought to you by the U.S. government! According to a study by the Environmental Law Institute, fossil fuels received over $70 billion in subsidies between 2002 and 2008, while traditional sources of renewable energy were given just $12.2 billion.

But the oil industry won’t even admit that the direct spending and tax breaks they get are subsidies – they prefer to call them “incentives”, and claim that attempts to roll back some of those subsidies are actually “new taxes”.

As Grist notes, the ELI report is actually pretty conservative – it didn’t include things like military spending to defend oil in the Middle East or infrastructure spending. But the fossil fuel industry’s free ride is almost over: President Obama’s new federal budget proposal wipes out these breaks and increases funding for clean energy research (and, unfortunately, nuclear power).

Photo credits: The following photos are from Flickr and licensed for commercial use under Creative Commons: “Freeway” by Payton Chung; “SUV” by The Car Spy; “Paper mill in Washington State” by Jan Tik; “Fish face” by Andy Welsh; “Nuclear reactor” by Intamin10; “Factory farm protest sign” by johnnyalive; “Corn” by normanack;  “Coal” by Duncan Harris; “Oil rig” by kenhodge13.

The post The 10 Least Green Government Subsidies appeared first on EcoSalon.